All Patents, scientific articles and other documents mentioned herein are incorporated by reference as if reproduced in full.
During the 2015 Florida Citrus Show in Fort Pierce, Fla., a 2-day conference, genuine desperation is clearly seen because it is disclosed that most of Florida is infected with Huang-longbing (HLB) bacteria and there are no good treatments for this devastating disease which will all but destroy the Florida citrus industry. See also, Rusnak, “All Hands On Deck to Save Florida Citrus”, 2015, http://www.growingproduce.com/citrus/insect-disease-update/all-hands-on-deck-to-save-florida-citrus/. Growers were almost crying as they are abandoning their groves, selling their land, pleading with scientists to do something, anything, a stop gap measure. At the scientific presentation, the scientists were at a loss to offer anything substantial at this time. Vague promises were made 5 years down the line, etc., that they may have something to counter HLB. Virtually all the growers are hanging on by their fingernails. Moreover, the mirror image of the situation in Florida is being played out in Italy where a similar systemic bacteria is killing centuries old olive trees. The natural course of both diseases is very similar, inescapably progressing to death, and again there are no good treatments. Unless a solution is found within 7 years, there will be little citrus or olive trees in Florida or Italy, respectively. Moreover, with global warming and climate change there will be many plant pests, insects, bacteria, and fungi extending their range moving into new territory severely impacting the way of life and the food supply of millions.
An example is the devastating Xylellafastidosa infection of olive trees, in Italy, discussed in “XylellaFastidosa: It's Biology, Diagnosis, Control, And Risks” by J. D. Janse and A. Obradovic. This infection is almost a mirror image of HLB infection of citrus. Xylella infection is a bacterium, which inhabits the internal vascular compartment of the olive tree, the xylem, and causes like HLB, plants to dry out, die, leaving shriveled stumps, that are incapable of bearing fruit. See also the Daily Mail, in the published article at “Olive Oil Under Threat From Bacteria Which Is Hitting Hundreds Of Thousands Of Trees In Italy—And Could Set Prices Soaring” by Hannah Roberts, and “Italian Government Urged To Take Action To Fight Against Olive Tree Epidemic” in Agro News, Jan. 9, 2015. Like HLB, there are few treatments which target the internal vascular system of olive trees.
HLB disease of citrus is a devastating phloem limited incurable bacterial infection which is decimating/killing the citrus industry worldwide. See, “Novel Bactericides and Application Methods to Control Huanglongbing Disease of Citrus” which discusses an overview of “inconsequential effect of nutritional treatments on Huanglongbing control, fruit quality, bacterial titer and disease progress” by T. R. Gottwald, J. H, Graham, et al. See also, “Citrus Disease with No Cure is Ravaging Florida Groves” Lizette Alvarez, New York Times, which provides: “We just need somebody to figure out how we can kill this bacteria in these trees.” See also, “Citrus Greening Forces Florida Growers To Trust A Controversial Savior” Huffington Post 2013/08/30, which discloses that most commercial growers have adopted foliar nutrition as a stop gap method to fend off the inevitable dying of their citrus trees. See also, “Overview of Citrus Grower Nutritional Spray Compositions” Tim Spann, which discloses “every fertilizer manufacturer now produces their own program of foliar nutrition for HLB.” Further disclosed is the “Maury Boyd cocktail”, which is the original nutritional foliar spray for HLB disease support.
Copper (II) hydroxide, also known as cupric hydroxide and having the chemical formula Cu(OH)2, has a wide variety of commercially important uses, including as a mordant and pigment in dyeing textile and paper fibers, in the preparation of catalysts and other copper compounds, in marine paints, and in fungicides and bactericides. There are tens of millions of pounds of copper hydroxide pesticides, fungicides, bactericides, and biocides used throughout the world yearly, including about three million pounds a year in California alone. The Material Fact Sheet for “Copper Products” in the Organic Resource Guide from the Center for Environmental Farming Systems, www.cefs.ncsu.edu/newsevents/ . . . product06-copperproducts.pdf discloses at page 93 that copper is labeled for use on over 100 crop plants to control fungal and bacterial diseases. Page 94 discloses a chart labeled “Copper Studies Showing Fair or Good Efficacy.”
As noted in PCT Patent Publication WO 2006028853 A1 of Oberholzer, Method for stabilizing copper hydroxide, Publication date Mar. 16, 2006, the patent literature discloses a variety of processes for the commercial manufacture of copper (II) hydroxide. U.S. Pat. Nos. 2,924,505, 3,428,731, 3,628,920, and RE 24,324 disclose processes involving phosphate. U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,490,337 and 4,808,406 disclose processes involving carbonate; the latter process provides a product comprising considerable copper carbonate, in addition to copper hydroxide. U.S. Pat. Nos. 1,800,828, 1,867,357, 2,525,242, 2,536,096 and 3,635,668 disclose processes involving ammonia. The processes of U.S. Pat. Nos. 2,525,242 and 2,536,096 involve oxidation of copper metal in the presence of ammonia and U.S. Pat. No. 4,944,935 discloses a similar process substituting ammonium ion for all or part of the ammonia. The other processes start with a soluble copper salt, typically copper (II) sulfate. U.S. Pat. No. 4,404,169, European Patent Number EP 80226 B1 and PCT Patent Publication WO 02/083566 A2 describe processes starting with copper (II) oxychloride. J. Komorowski-Kulik, Zeszyty, Naukowe Politecniki Sitaskiej, Series: Chemistry 2001, 142, 59-66 discloses a process where an aqueous suspension of copper (II) oxychloride is contacted with aqueous sodium hydroxide in the presence of glycerol as stabilizer, (See PCT Patent Publication WO 2006028853 A1 of Oberholzer, Method for stabilizing copper hydroxide, Publication date Mar. 16, 2006). Oberholzer, in U.S. Pat. No. 7,402,296, claims priority from the aforementioned PCT Patent Publication WO 2006028853 A1 of Oberholzer.
Nufarm discloses the history of copper fungicides, the history of copper hydroxide, how copper hydroxide works, how copper works, particle size of copper hydroxide fungicide and more information, including about their products Champ® Dry Prill, Champ® Formula 2 Flowable and Champion® WP (See Nufarm Americas Inc., Nufarm Agriculture Division, “The Copper Champs!” ©2002.)
DuPont discloses a similar product, DuPont Kocide Blue Xtra with similar information. (DuPont (Australia) Ltd., DuPont™ Kocide Blue Xtra with BioActive Copper® ©2006) DuPont discloses a bewildering array of dozens of plant diseases, treated with DuPont™ Kocide® 3000 Fungicide/Bactericide, on a multitude of agricultural crops. (E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company Crop Protection, DuPont™ Kocide® 3000 Fungicide/Bactericide, ©2006-2011.)
Copper pesticides, fungicides, and bactericides are extremely toxic to fish and aquatic organisms. (Nufarm Americas Inc., Agt Division, Champ® WG Specimen Label). Runoff from the use of copper fungicides, bactericides and algaecides into waterways, ground water and the ground is a very serious contamination problem well known to those in the art. For example, Scientific American, Mar. 18, 2013, “Fish Cannot Smell In Polluted Waters” by Brian Bienkowski, discloses: “copper is a poster child for water pollution” said Nathaniel Scholz, an excitology program manager at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Northwest Fisheries Science Center, further noting “copper is intensively used as a pesticide, fungicide . . . it's found in cars, in boat paint, so boatyards are often contaminated, and it's often found in industrial discharge and near legacy mining operations. It's a rare pollutant that's both agricultural and urban.” Young coho salmon exposed to low levels of copper did not evade predators—cutthroat trout—nearly as well as unexposed salmon, according to a lab study by Scholz and colleagues. The problem is “likely to be widespread in many freshwater aquatic habitats” according to a NOAA report. Copper at low concentrations targets the neurons that help fish avoid predators, but at higher concentrations, copper impairs their smell for everything.
The Alabama State Water Program, of the Alabama Water Quality Information System—FAQ results, discloses that agricultural pesticides are considered a potential source of copper pollution for water, and that 10 million pounds of copper was used in agricultural fungicides in the U.S. alone in 1990, “much of the copper is sprayed on plants and tends to accumulate in the immediate soil environment, making it susceptible to storm water runoff from agricultural operations.”
“The Grower”, Jan. 1, 2012 by Tom Burfield, discloses that “now, producers are growing increasingly anxious about the effect copper buildup may have on their groves, and they're increasingly afraid that the day will come when pathogens display copper resistance.”
U.S. Pat. No. 5,202,353 of Schroth, Iron Enhancement of Copper Based Fungicidal and Bactericidal and Bactericidal Compositions, 1993, discloses that the addition of soluble iron to copper hydroxide fungicide increases activity of the copper hydroxide fungicide bactericide and reverses resistance to copper in vitro. Also, U.S. Pat. No. 5,385,934 of Schroth, Methods for Preventing Precipitation of Copper Based Bactericidal Compositions Containing Iron, 1995, discloses the addition of an aggregation inhibiting salt to the copper plus iron compositions to prevent aggregate/or sediment formation upon the addition of Fe+3 to the composition. Both of Schroth's patents taken together require five components—a copper hydroxide component or a fixed copper component, with a dry surfactant, plus a soluble iron component, plus a liquid surfactant, and plus an aggregation inhibitor, salt. Without being limited, held or bound to any particular theory or mechanism of action Applicant believes that because the copper component and the iron components are separate, the copper hydroxide being insoluble, the iron components being both soluble and insoluble, the aggregation inhibitor, the dry surfactant, and the liquid surfactant, the sizes being vastly different, then it follows that the release rate and quantities and bioavailability of copper and iron ions on plant surfaces is not identical, or regulated, so that each component may release and disperse their ions at different rates compromising the pesticidal, fungicidal, bactericidal and biocidal effects of the composition. Moreover, it is complicated to have 5 different separate components, with different solubilities; namely a copper component, iron components, two different surfactants, and the aggregation inhibiting component. Schroth's iron component is soluble, so that when sprayed on plant leaves, would tend to disappear in the rain, and thus be of little value. This compelled Schroth to disclose, for example, page 1463, in the sentences before discussion, of Lee and Schroth's paper, “in these experiments, insoluble ferric oxide was used to replace half of the concentrations of ferric chloride for the purpose of increasing persistence.” See Lee, Schroth, et al., “Increased Toxicity of Iron-Amended Copper-Containing Bactericides to the Walnut Blight Pathogen Xanthomonascampestrispv.juglandis” Phytopathology, Ecology ad Epidemiology, The American Phytopathological Society, 1993, pgs. 1460-1465 (referred to herein as “Schroth/Lee”). Phytotoxicity was noted on trees treated with Champion® plus both ferric chloride and ferric oxide, although there was no difference in the efficacy between these two treatments. Page 1464 of Schroth/Lee discloses: “the effect of copper-iron mixtures in reducing blight of nuts has not been significantly better then copper compounds alone to date” and “whereas copper compounds are very effective in controlling blight of leaves, they have never demonstrated such effectiveness on nuts.” Schroth/Lee also concludes on page 1464, “although the addition of ferric chloride to fixed copper compounds increases the concentration of free copper ions, phytotoxicity has not been observed in the field. However, phytotoxicity occurred when the insoluble ferric oxide was combined with ferric chloride. The reasons for this are unknown but probably have something to do with the long-term release of iron ions that interact with the fixed coppers. This surprising result indicates that much work yet has to be done to find the best formulation that will result in the greatest kill of bacteria over an extended period of time while at the same time not harming tender walnut tissues.”
“The effect of iron in increasing the efficacy of copper compounds offers a new advance in the use of the age-old copper compounds and should lead to greatly improved control of bacteria such as X.c.juglandis. However, this will greatly depend on both the ecology of copper-resistant bacteria and the efficacy of new formulations in eradicating established populations.”
Schroth's/Lee's paper, and Schroth's patents are clearly not enabling for “new formulations,” taken together with the failure of “persistence” with their soluble irons on plant leaves, and unacceptable phytoxicity. When Schroth/Lee tried to ameliorate the lack of persistence with the addition of insoluble iron to their soluble iron, their paper in the author's own words discloses their invention is unworkable. Their call for “new formulations” says it all, as well as their statement “much work yet has to be done.” Schroth's disclosures have never caught on in commerce because of the complicated nature of their practice and problems with the release of ions, phytotoxicity, persistence, lack of activity, rain fastness and unperfected development.
Jim Graham, Megan Dewdney, in “Comparison of Copper Formulations for Control of Canker on Hamlin Oranges” disclose the testing of 14 different dosages of 11 distinct copper formulations. The formulations range from insoluble copper compounds, complexes, chelates to soluble copper chelates. No copper treatment was very effective on fruit incidents at harvest. A preferred size for systemic uptake according to Graham is 5 to 10 nm. See Graham, Jim, Novel Bactericides and Application Methods to Control Disease of Citrus, IV International Symposium of Plant-Pathogenic Bacteria, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico, Sep. 23, 2014, University of Florida, UF-IFAS, especially third page from end, entitled Alternative bactericide must be non phytotoxic and systemic. i.e., capable of loading into the phloem via foliar application. No insoluble coppers tested by Graham had a particle size of 5-10 nanometers, so that none of the compounds of Graham's testing are capable of systemic administration to the plant through the stomata.
Zinc-doped CuO nanocomposites of a specific size are known for use in specific fields. Eyal Malka et al., (small 2013, DOI:10.1002/sm11.201301081, www.small-journal.com) discloses, “eradication of multi-drug resistant bacteria by a novel zinc-doped CuO nanocomposite.” Michal Eshed, et al., (Advanced Functional Materials 2014, pp. 1382-1390, www.afm-journal.de) discloses, “a Zn-doped CuO nanocomposite shows enhanced anti-biofilm and antibacterial activities against Streptococcus mutans compared to nanosized CuO.” They conclude, “the results of the present study further highlight the potential of these novel Zn:CuO np's as inhibitors of biofilm within the context of the oral niche.” Moreover, Richardson provides, “commercially produced cupric oxide (copper(2) oxide) is ineffective as a fungicide or bactericide due to small surface areas; that is, dissolution times are very long compared to other basic copper (2) compounds,” see H. Wayne Richardson in the “Handbook Of Copper Compounds And Applications” pg. 109. This CuO used by Malka and Eshed is the same copper referred by Richardson above. While 30 nm sized Zn:CuO nanocomponents are known, Applicant submits that taken together, biofilm in the oral niche and coatings of linens and antimicrobial bandages, they do not relate in any way to agricultural pesticide, and systemic plant protectorants. Moreover the size of 30 nm previously disclosed does not conform to Graham's teaching of 5-10 nm for systemic administration to citrus plants.
Ploss, et al, U.S. Pat. No. 7,105,136 B2, discloses that doping 5 wt % zinc metal into a copper salt composition intended for agricultural applications provided enhanced surface adhesion, as in the case of plants on leaf and fruit surfaces, thereby increasing the duration of the plant-protecting effects and also eliminating the expense and environmental emissions associated with the re-application of prior art compositions that would be required to provide the same level of protection. Ploss's use of metallic zinc to provide enhanced surface adhesion does not teach any advantages with regard to pesticidal characteristics per se. For example, zinc is a metal, an element and is insoluble in water, with a small surface area. Floss provides no teaching or suggestion that its metallic zinc is pesticidal as “enhanced surface adhesion” is clearly taught. This is known to those of knowledge of the art as an “adjuvant.” Exemplary examples of the overwhelming plethora of agricultural adjuvants are: Nufarm, “Adjuvants Product Guide” pg 16, and Momentive, Momentive Adjuvants, Silwet and Agrospread adjuvants. Nufann's Spraymate bond is a high quality sticker, deposition and retention agent for use with contact or protectant type fungicides or with contact and ingested insecticides. Spraymate bond increases adherence of spray droplets by sticking them finnly to target surfaces. This protects pesticides against wash-off by rain or sprinkler irrigation. Spraymate bond also protects chemicals by slowing the rate of degradation immediately after application. Its key benefits are that it improves spray droplet deposition, retains and protects droplets on targets, improves the performance and life of protectant fungicides and contact insecticides. Furthermore, there is a world of difference between pure zinc metal, an element, and insoluble pesticidal zinc compounds.